welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2012-06-17: Empathy
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10954
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dark Archon wrote:
ShadowCell wrote:

'cuz the Scandinavian countries are definitely left-wing--hell, even Canada is left-leaning--and yet they are clearly not totalitarian societies.
They aren't dictatorships. Being sick doesn't make you dead.

Yeah. Apparently "being sick" just makes you the happiest countries on earth.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Ill do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6185
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i can't tell you anything about that picture if it's not translated

at any rate, do you really not see how "equal future" means "equal future for you"?

besides which, propaganda is meaningless if people don't believe it and obey it, and why would people do that? because the alternative is suffering--suffering for you. threats to your self-interest. y'know, "work for the motherland or we'll shoot you," "support the dictator or the Americans will get you," "vote for me in this sham election and i'll give you stuff." the opposite of altruism. unless you mean to tell me that everyone in the Soviet Union was really a Motherland-loving automaton mindlessly willing to sacrifice themselves for the glory of the Worker's Paradise, in which case you actually believed the Soviet propaganda, which is hilarious and also stupid.

maybe that's your problem. you actually believed them when the Soviets said that everyone in the USSR was a fanatically loyal worker willing to selflessly lay down their lives for the people's state?

'cuz if you didn't believe them and you do think that people actually went along with the Soviet state out of self-interest, then that pretty much destroys your theory that altruism is the root of totalitarianism.

besides which, there are in fact other places that have had totalitarian governments besides Russia. so you're still miles away from actually proving your point.

so, uh, those examples you cited? yeah. they, uh, don't actually support your point.

nor have you ever really proved that left-leaning countries like the Scandinavian countries and Canada are "sick," anymore than any other country is.


Last edited by ShadowCell on Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dark Archon



Joined: 27 Jan 2012
Posts: 42
Location: Moskow

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Yeah, I'm with Rants here... you don't really seem to have a point here, Archon, other than to say "no, that's not true" to whatever anyone else says.

Maybe.

Dogen wrote:
I mean, you attacked equality and socialism, but then when I showed you that countries that have higher equality and more socialized services are also the happiest, you just claimed they weren't socialist...

Also the happiest? You know, I could make another long argue about hapiness, but I really don't see any meaning in this.

Dogen wrote:

umm... except they are

There is no socialism with right of property. It's capitalist states, who spend many money on social demands.

Dogen wrote:

, and they're the opposite of what Rand promotes (laissez faire economics, or totally free markets without regulations).

We never saw such state and never will.

Dogen wrote:

I'm not looking to make a socialist utopia. I'm looking for what works. If you want to sit there and tell us your country is shit, fine. But other countries seem to be doing just fine, and I see no reason not to learn from their examples.

Well, I want you to learn from our example - do not pursue utopias. But I think that lesson should come from history, not me.
_________________
"From the smallest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from one attribute of man the function of his reasoning mind."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3352

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Making a country better is not necessarily "pursuit of utopia" You can work to improve the lot of your countrymen without having to promise paradise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dark Archon



Joined: 27 Jan 2012
Posts: 42
Location: Moskow

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:
unless you mean to tell me that everyone in the Soviet Union was really a Motherland-loving automaton mindlessly willing to sacrifice themselves for the glory of the Worker's Paradise, in which case you actually believed the Soviet propaganda, which is hilarious and also stupid.

My grand-grandmother was one of these automatons. She believed the Soviet propaganda, and gave her life to that country.
_________________
"From the smallest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from one attribute of man the function of his reasoning mind."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6185
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

...your point being...?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17600
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dark Archon wrote:
altruism

Inigo Montoya wrote:
You keep using that words. I do not think it means what you think it means.


repeat for 'socialism'.

by the way - just out of curiosity, how old were you when the soviet union collapsed?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17600
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

by the way, this picture:
Dark Archon wrote:




appears to be titled "Liberation of Western Ukraine and Belarus", so i'm not clear what that has to do with totalitarians lying to the people to come into power. because having the army of another country come in and toss out the army of a third country is not exactly the same as choosing your leaders.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10954
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dark Archon wrote:
Dogen wrote:
I mean, you attacked equality and socialism, but then when I showed you that countries that have higher equality and more socialized services are also the happiest, you just claimed they weren't socialist...

Also the happiest? You know, I could make another long argue about hapiness, but I really don't see any meaning in this.

Yes. I linked you to a list of the happiest countries, and also a list of the countries with the smallest gender gap (one measure of equality), and many of the same countries were on both lists. Those countries also tended to be ones that have highly socialized systems (basically, all of Scandinavia).

Quote:
There is no socialism with right of property. It's capitalist states, who spend many money on social demands.

Yes, they're free market states that include some degree of social control, such as state-run healthcare and education systems, where both production and access are controlled by the state. They're not 100% socialist, nor 100% capitalist. The point, though, is that they seem to be doing well. Which is why they're worth looking to for inspiration.

Quote:
Dogen wrote:

, and they're the opposite of what Rand promotes (laissez faire economics, or totally free markets without regulations).

We never saw such state and never will.

By your definition (all or nothing), no. But the US had a period of extreme minimalist intervention between the time of the Articles of Confederation and the mid-19th century. It was marked by labor abuses, horrible working conditions, slave wages, child labor... generally considered a bad time to be anything other than rich.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Ill do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dark Archon



Joined: 27 Jan 2012
Posts: 42
Location: Moskow

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:
...your point being...?

Quote:
maybe that's your problem. you actually believed them when the Soviets said that everyone in the USSR was a fanatically loyal worker willing to selflessly lay down their lives for the people's state?

I don't have to believe it - I knew and know whose people. Not everyone, but whose people existed and they build the USSR and protected it in the Second World War. And it's very hard to see them as egoists because in all their lives, they had nothing from state they believed and served.

USSR started with idealists and altruists. It ended when egoists has taken over.

mouse wrote:
by the way, this picture:

appears to be titled "Liberation of Western Ukraine and Belarus", so i'm not clear what that has to do with totalitarians lying to the people to come into power. because having the army of another country come in and toss out the army of a third country is not exactly the same as choosing your leaders.

I more like the "...is your sacred duty". Is it promises me something? No, it tells me what to do.


"Educate generation selflessly devoted to the communist cause!"


"Be Alert!".
Again, how should I win from this?


"Let's make five-year plan in four years!"
Yet again...


And again, and I could continue.

Selfless devotion is the thing which build that. "Don't think - fuhrer will do it for you".

Quote:
Yes, they're free market states that include some degree of social control, such as state-run healthcare and education systems, where both production and access are controlled by the state. They're not 100% socialist, nor 100% capitalist. The point, though, is that they seem to be doing well. Which is why they're worth looking to for inspiration.

You know, maybe that's because thet aren't socialist in the first place? Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas, than USA - business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S. In many ways, Scandinavian countries are more "laissez faire" than United States.

Dogen wrote:

By your definition (all or nothing), no. But the US had a period of extreme minimalist intervention between the time of the Articles of Confederation and the mid-19th century. It was marked by labor abuses, horrible working conditions, slave wages, child labor... generally considered a bad time to be anything other than rich.

We have such states now. Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia, and, as I said - Scandinavian countries themselves very free. And nothing like slave and child labor. They were other times, you know, and US still was heaven compared to Russia Empire, with all those things.

Dogen wrote:

Yes. I linked you to a list of the happiest countries, and also a list of the countries with the smallest gender gap (one measure of equality), and many of the same countries were on both lists. Those countries also tended to be ones that have highly socialized systems (basically, all of Scandinavia).

Yeah, it's great to benefit from free market AND social care. Except one feeds from the other.
_________________
"From the smallest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from one attribute of man the function of his reasoning mind."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10954
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dark Archon wrote:
Quote:
Yes, they're free market states that include some degree of social control, such as state-run healthcare and education systems, where both production and access are controlled by the state. They're not 100% socialist, nor 100% capitalist. The point, though, is that they seem to be doing well. Which is why they're worth looking to for inspiration.

You know, maybe that's because thet aren't socialist in the first place? Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas, than USA - business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S. In many ways, Scandinavian countries are more "laissez faire" than United States.

In many ways they're more laissez faire than the US? What ways would those be? They have socialized medicine, socialized education, stronger labor regulations, and a variety of either state-run businesses or industries (such as railways and airports). The US has no socialized medicine, only provides education through grade 12, has lax labor laws and is stripping those away, and the majority of our state-run businesses exist to service private business (such as by insuring the deposits of private banks). So how is it that Scandinavian countries are more laissez faire than the US?

Quote:
Dogen wrote:

By your definition (all or nothing), no. But the US had a period of extreme minimalist intervention between the time of the Articles of Confederation and the mid-19th century. It was marked by labor abuses, horrible working conditions, slave wages, child labor... generally considered a bad time to be anything other than rich.

We have such states now. Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia, and, as I said - Scandinavian countries themselves very free. And nothing like slave and child labor. They were other times, you know, and US still was heaven compared to Russia Empire, with all those things.

No. Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland and Australia are nothing like the US was in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Nothing at all. This is simply, blatantly false.

Quote:
Dogen wrote:

Yes. I linked you to a list of the happiest countries, and also a list of the countries with the smallest gender gap (one measure of equality), and many of the same countries were on both lists. Those countries also tended to be ones that have highly socialized systems (basically, all of Scandinavia).

Yeah, it's great to benefit from free market AND social care. Except one feeds from the other.

Yes. Having a relatively free market that's regulated by a strong central government, with a variety of social safety nets and guaranteed services, promotes health and happiness. Hence, Ayn Rand is wrong and so is utopian communism (as the two extremes).
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Ill do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dark Archon



Joined: 27 Jan 2012
Posts: 42
Location: Moskow

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
In many ways they're more laissez faire than the US? What ways would those be? They have socialized medicine, socialized education, stronger labor regulations, and a variety of either state-run businesses or industries (such as railways and airports). The US has no socialized medicine, only provides education through grade 12, has lax labor laws and is stripping those away, and the majority of our state-run businesses exist to service private business (such as by insuring the deposits of private banks). So how is it that Scandinavian countries are more laissez faire than the US?

Laissez faire not about having or social care, it's about freedom of buisness and separaion of it from the goverment. In that ways, Scandinavian countries are more free than US. That is keep them floating.

Dogen wrote:

No. Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland and Australia are nothing like the US was in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Nothing at all. This is simply, blatantly false.

They are totally free market countries, too.

Dogen wrote:

Yes. Having a relatively free market that's regulated by a strong central government, with a variety of social safety nets and guaranteed services, promotes health and happiness. Hence, Ayn Rand is wrong and so is utopian communism (as the two extremes).

I agree with that. It's only shame that social safety destroys foundation on which it standing.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx and links in there.
...and we can move our economical argue up there.
_________________
"From the smallest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from one attribute of man the function of his reasoning mind."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6185
Location: California

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dark Archon wrote:
I don't have to believe it - I knew and know whose people. Not everyone, but whose people existed and they build the USSR and protected it in the Second World War. And it's very hard to see them as egoists because in all their lives, they had nothing from state they believed and served.


seeing as how that was in the middle of a war against an enemy that had literally genocidal intentions, that's not a very good example.

you keep asserting that totalitarian states like the USSR are built on "altruism" and not "egoism." do you just not know what these words mean or what? and now you don't seem to know what laissez-faire means.

and that's ignoring the great big elephant in the room that is the fact that the USSR was never actually communist for very long. it didn't take long for the USSR to turn into essentially a fascist state behind the trappings of communism.

so really, if you want to knock communism, all this bullshit about "altruism" just makes you look like a comic book villain. the real problem with communism is how easily it turns into fascism. and that has nothing to do with altruism or egoism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dark Archon



Joined: 27 Jan 2012
Posts: 42
Location: Moskow

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:

seeing as how that was in the middle of a war against an enemy that had literally genocidal intentions, that's not a very good example.

Yeah, many were fighting for their lives. But there were many of those, who were willing to sacrifice themselves. Not on an order - they does it on their own will. Matrosov is the trope codifier there.

ShadowCell wrote:

you keep asserting that totalitarian states like the USSR are built on "altruism" and not "egoism." do you just not know what these words mean or what? and now you don't seem to know what laissez-faire means.

Well, say what they mean to you, and I would say what they mean to me. Egoism is selfishness. Altruism is opposite.


ShadowCell wrote:

and that's ignoring the great big elephant in the room that is the fact that the USSR was never actually communist for very long. it didn't take long for the USSR to turn into essentially a fascist state behind the trappings of communism.

so really, if you want to knock communism, all this bullshit about "altruism" just makes you look like a comic book villain. the real problem with communism is how easily it turns into fascism. and that has nothing to do with altruism or egoism.

You know, I don't see much difference between communism and fascism.
They are the same. There wasn't any difference between USSR and Nazi Germany - only we killed much more, and of our own. Only kind of lie differs, and USSR lie was altruistic.
_________________
"From the smallest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from one attribute of man the function of his reasoning mind."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6185
Location: California

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i'm not seeing how Matrosov is supporting your claim that altruism is the root of totalitarianism. there were people like Matrosov on all sides of World War II. there are people like Matrosov in every war everywhere. there are especially people like Matrosov when the other side literally looks at you as subhuman and wants to exterminate you like rodents. none of this has anything to do with totalitarianism.

altruism is what the dictionary says it is. you are either not using this word correctly or you don't understand what it is. either way, you haven't shown how altruism--that is,

Quote:
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others


is the root of totalitarianism--that is,

Quote:
a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible


and i'll note that you never actually did address my point that propaganda that sounds "altruistic" is actually not, which takes us back to my point about how apparently you believe Soviet propaganda, which is probably the root of your problem.

as a helpful hint, you'll have to explain how the Soviet Union gained power on the basis of concern for the welfare of others and not on the basis of self-interest. which means you'll have to explain how everyone who embraced communism did it because they thought it would bring their neighbors a better life and not because they did it because they thought it would bring themselves a better life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 13 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group